911 and the Demo Truth
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Intermediate Accounting 12th and 13th edition Kieso Weygandt
Next: JSH: Back to conic section parameterization result
From: Iarnrod on 15 Oct 2009 11:13 On Oct 15, 7:49 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > AllYou! wrote: > > Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> mused: > >> AllYou! wrote: > >>> Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> mused: > >>>> How else do you explain > >>>> the molten metal that flowed like lava, > >>> Lead, aluminum, copper, and any other substances that could look > >>> 'like' lava as much as metal does. > >> So, you "think" the structural steel in the towers and WTC7 > >> was made of lead, aluminum, and copper, eh? Good "thinking", nut > >> job... > > You're using your conclusion that the molten metal was steel in > > order to prove that the steel was melted. The fact is that there's > > no evidence whatsoever that the molten stuff that someone said that > > they think they saw was steel at all. > > Actually, I'm relying on photo and eyewitness evidence, nut job. > > Evidence of molten metal is well documented. Why don't you post some then? There is NO evidence of molten metal.
From: Iarnrod on 15 Oct 2009 11:14 On Oct 15, 8:40 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > AllYou! wrote: > > Innews:hb798m$ljm$2(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, > > Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> mused: > >> AllYou! wrote: > >>> Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> mused: > >>>> AllYou! wrote: > >>>>> Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> mused: > >>>>>> How else do you explain > >>>>>> the molten metal that flowed like lava, > >>>>> Lead, aluminum, copper, and any other substances that could > >>>>> look 'like' lava as much as metal does. > >>>> So, you "think" the structural steel in the towers and WTC7 > >>>> was made of lead, aluminum, and copper, eh? Good "thinking", > >>>> nut job... > >>> You're using your conclusion that the molten metal was steel in > >>> order to prove that the steel was melted. The fact is that > >>> there's no evidence whatsoever that the molten stuff that > >>> someone said that they think they saw was steel at all. > > ] > > >> Actually, I'm relying on photo and eyewitness evidence, > >> Evidence of molten metal is well documented. > > But not molten steel. > > Because thermite reactions produce molten metal. There was no thermite. Not even possible. Even if you could suspend physical laws and somehow get it in there to work against gravity... thermite is not physically capable of doing what happened on 9/11, Hankie the Self-Admitted Fired Janitor.
From: Iarnrod on 15 Oct 2009 11:15 On Oct 15, 9:08 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > I quoted FDNY members who compared it to > lava and a foundry. No one but you said that lava flows > in a foundry, nut job. You are quite clearly insane. None of those FDNY members saw any molten metal, Fired Janitor Boy.
From: AllYou! on 15 Oct 2009 11:32 In news:hb7dt7$ps$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >>> AllYou! wrote: >>>> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > >>>>> Actually, I'm relying on photo and eyewitness evidence, >>> >>>>> Evidence of molten metal is well documented. >>>> But not molten steel. >>> Because thermite reactions produce molten metal. >> >> If thermite interacts with steel, it can produce molten steel. > > Wrong nut job. Learn how to read and think. So if thermite reacts with steel, it results in some other kind of pools of molten metal? Hmmmm. What kind would be, and what evidence do you have that it's specifically that kind of metal which you claim that someone claims they think they saw at the WTC? >> There is no evidence that whatever people think they saw which >> might look like molten metal was, in fact, molten steel. > > They called it molten steel Actually, all the quotes you've provided so far are that they called it molten metal. Why would you now lie about that? > because it was dripping off > steel beams, but technically, it was molten metal due to > the chemical reaction of the thermite. That doesn't makes sense even on its face. Your evidence of thermite is that the molten metal is molten steel because of the thermite that you can't prove existed without the evidence of molten steel which you can't prove is steel without the thermite which you can't......... You see where this is going, right? >> It's the same kind of circular logic in which you continually >> engage, and which is not that different than what a dog uses to >> cause it to chase its own tail. >> >>>>> Here are two of our 9-11 rescue heroes who observed molten >>>>> metal "flowing like lava - like a "foundry" > >>>> Lava flows in foundries? > >>> No one has said that but you, nut job. Learn how to read and >>> think, nut job. > >> You did. You just said that it looked like flowing lava like a >> foundry. > > Wrong nut job, There you go again. Why are you so heel bent upon meeting your own standard of being a whacko? > I quoted FDNY members who compared it to > lava and a foundry. No one but you said that lava flows > in a foundry, nut job. You are quite clearly insane. Actually, you did.
From: Iarnrod on 15 Oct 2009 11:35
On Oct 15, 9:19 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > Iarnrod wrote: > > On Oct 15, 7:49 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > >> Evidence of molten metal is well documented. > > Why don't you post some then? > > You'r still not making any sense, nut job. I know that having been fired from your janitor job for sniffing the chemicals in the lab and destroying the alleged "thinking" part of your brain, that this is a difficult concept for you, but when you make a claim it is customary to cite evidence for it. <chuckle> What part of this is giving you problems? Could it be the part where your claim is not obnly false but physically impossible? |